Re: DRAFT: debian-legal summary of the QPL
On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 11:17:51AM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> Sven Luther <sven.luther@wanadoo.fr> writes:
>
> > On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 11:12:57AM -0800, D. Starner wrote:
> >> Sven Luther writes:
> >>
> >> > Sorry, but i don't believe such a request is legally binding.
> >>
> >> I do. More to the point, neither of us is the judge who's going to
> >
> > Well, as said, i did some legal consulting, and the mention that a TV
> > broadcasted request for patches should be legally binding did bring in some
> > round of laughter.
>
> Did you explain to your legal advisor that this is a broadcast request
> in the context where you're operating within a license obliging you to
> obey such requests?
Yeah, sure. It is not binding.
> > Furthermore, i was mentioned the fact that the request should be
> > nominal, both to the modificator and the actual patch involved,
>
> I apologize, but I cannot understand what you mean by a request being
> nominal to the modifier or the patch. Where does this idea of
> "nominal"ness appear in the QPL?
You Brian, i know that you modified my work with patch foo. As the QPL point
6c mentions, i request from you that you send me the changes in question.
In a formal letter, sent as recomande awith avis de reception in france, so
you get proof not only that it arrived, but your signature in the avis de
reception. But then, i guess a fedex or DHL or whatever such sending would do
too.
This is the way i imagine a legally binding request, and the way such business
is conducted here. And i send such recomande avec avis de reception, for all
critical stuff, including employer disputes, house contract resignation and
such.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
Reply to: